Harmless-Error Review for “Different Occasions” Findings after Erlinger
A Comprehensive Commentary on United States v. Jameel Williams (11th Cir. 2025)

1. Introduction

In United States v. Jameel Williams, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit confronted three recurring post-Erlinger questions:

1. Whether a judge’s finding that prior convictions occurred on “different occasions” under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) must always be vacated after Erlinger v. United States (2024);
2. Whether a Florida cocaine conviction qualifies as a “serious drug offense” when Florida’s statute references “stereoisomers” while the federal schedule lists only “optical and geometric isomers”; and
3. Whether the federal felon-in-possession statute, 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(1), exceeds Congress’s Commerce Clause authority or violates the Second Amendment.

The defendant, Jameel Shadeed Williams, received a 180-month sentence after the district court applied ACCA’s 15-year mandatory minimum enhancement based on three prior Florida cocaine-sale convictions (2003, 2003, 2014). On appeal he argued, inter alia, that Erlinger rendered the district court’s “different occasions” determination unconstitutional and that any such error was structural (i.e., automatically requiring reversal).

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed both conviction and sentence, holding:

• Erlinger Error Harmless: Although the district judge, not a jury, decided the “different occasions” question, the error was subject to harmless-error review under the circuit’s intervening decision in United States v. Rivers (2025). Given the eleven-year gap and distinct locations of the three sales, no reasonable jury could have found they occurred on the same occasion.
• Florida Cocaine Convictions = Serious Drug Offenses: Under plain-error review, the court rejected the argument that Florida’s reference to “stereoisomers” created a categorical mismatch with federal schedules. The defendant failed to show any “realistic probability” that Florida prosecutes a broader set of cocaine isomers.
• §922(g)(1) Constitutional: Challenges under the Commerce Clause and Second Amendment were foreclosed by circuit precedent (Longoria, Rozier, Dubois). No plain error existed.

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

1. Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821 (2024)
   – Held that “different occasions” is a fact for the jury, proven beyond a reasonable doubt, unless admitted.
   – Left open whether violation is structural or subject to harmless-error review.
2. United States v. Rivers, 139 F.4th 1292 (11th Cir. 2025)
   – Filled Erlinger’s gap for the Eleventh Circuit: such errors are reviewed for harmlessness.
3. Wooden v. United States, 595 U.S. 360 (2022)
   – Articulated factors (time, place, scheme, objective) for determining when crimes occur on separate occasions.
4. United States v. Dudley, 5 F.4th 1249 (11th Cir. 2021)
   – Pre-Erlinger standard; remains relevant for review standards except where abrogated.
5. Isomer Cases – Chamu, Laines, Jackson/Brown
   – Employ the categorical approach and “realistic probability” test for controlled-substance mismatches.
6. Constitutional Claims – Longoria, Rozier, Dubois, Bolatete
   – Confirm §922(g)’s constitutionality and shape plain-error limits.

These authorities created a tightly woven doctrinal net. The panel’s hands were largely tied: Rivers mandated harmless-error analysis; Chamu/Laines foreclosed the isomer mismatch; and Rozier/Dubois foreclosed the Second-Amendment challenge.

3.2 Legal Reasoning of the Court

3.2.1 Harmless-Error Framework Post-Erlinger

The court first acknowledged that the district judge’s fact-finding violated Erlinger. Applying Rivers, it then asked whether the government could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have made the same finding. Key factors:

• Time Gaps: Four-month separation between the first two sales (May 1 & Sept 2, 2003) and an eleven-year gap before the third (Apr 11, 2014).
• Location Differences: One sale near a church; another near a school; the third at an undisclosed, separate locale.
• Absence of Contrary Evidence: The defendant offered no competing documents or testimony.

Under Wooden and Penn, a “single factor—especially of time or place—can decisively differentiate occasions.” The panel found both factors strongly present, rendering any contrary jury verdict essentially impossible.

3.2.2 “Serious Drug Offense” and the Stereoisomer Debate

Using the categorical approach, the court compared:

• Florida Statute (2003 & 2014): Covers “cocaine or ecgonine, including any of their stereoisomers.”
• Federal Schedule II: “Cocaine, its salts, optical and geometric isomers, and salts of isomers.”

The defense posited that “stereoisomer” is broader than “optical + geometric isomers,” creating an overbroad state statute. But under Chamu and Laines:

1. A textual difference alone is insufficient; the defendant must show actual prosecutions for the extra conduct.
2. Absent binding precedent declaring mismatch, any error cannot be “plain.”

The panel thus held there was no plain error—mirroring Laines, which labeled the isomer argument “not obvious or clear under current law.”

3.2.3 Constitutional Claims

Without Supreme Court or Eleventh Circuit authority overruling Longoria or Rozier, the panel found no plain error. It also reiterated the “minimal nexus” test from Wright for Commerce Clause challenges (firearm traveled interstate at any point).

3.3 Potential Impact of the Decision

• Solidifies Circuit Position: Confirms that in the Eleventh Circuit, all Erlinger violations are subject to harmless-error review absent Supreme Court direction to the contrary.
• Practical Guidance: Provides a template for prosecutors to prove harmlessness—large temporal gaps and distinct locations virtually guarantee success.
• Narrows Isomer Challenges: Reinforces a high bar for categorical mismatch arguments based on chemical nomenclature unless the defense can cite controlling precedent or actual prosecutions.
• Forecloses Common Constitutional Attacks: Reaffirms longevity of §922(g)(1) against Commerce Clause and Second-Amendment attacks within the circuit, pending further Supreme Court intervention.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA)

A federal statute imposing a 15-year minimum sentence on felons in possession of a firearm who have three prior qualifying convictions for violent felonies or serious drug offenses committed on different occasions.

“Different Occasions”

The requirement that each predicate crime be distinct in time, place, or scheme. If two crimes happened during one continuous episode, they count as one.

Structural Error vs. Harmless Error

Structural error automatically triggers reversal (e.g., denial of counsel). Harmless error may be overlooked if the appellate court is convinced it did not affect the outcome.

Categorical Approach

A method where courts compare statutory elements, not facts, to see if a prior conviction matches the federal definition of a qualifying offense.

Plain Error Review

A defendant who did not raise an objection below must show (1) error, (2) that is clear or obvious, (3) affecting substantial rights, and (4) requiring correction to preserve judicial integrity.

Isomers (Optical, Geometric, Stereoisomer)

Chemical variants with identical formulas but different arrangements. “Stereoisomer” is an umbrella term; “optical” and “geometric” are sub-types.

5. Conclusion

United States v. Jameel Williams cements two important post-Erlinger principles in the Eleventh Circuit:

1. Occasion-finding errors are not structural; they are reviewed for harmlessness, with the government bearing a heavy but surmountable burden.
2. Textual discrepancies between Florida’s cocaine statute and the federal schedule—“stereoisomer” versus “optical and geometric isomers”—do not plainly create categorical mismatches absent empirical support.

Together with Rivers, Williams provides prosecutors, defense counsel, and district judges a clearer roadmap for litigating ACCA enhancements after Erlinger. Unless the Supreme Court expands Erlinger or revisits §922(g)’s constitutionality, defendants in the Eleventh Circuit will face an uphill battle challenging ACCA enhancements based on long-separated predicate offenses and Florida cocaine convictions. The ruling thus reinforces both the reach of ACCA and the stability of §922(g)(1), shaping sentencing practice in federal courts across Alabama, Georgia, and Florida for years to come.